System for evolving efficient communication

ABSTRACT

An improved system, method, service method, and data structure that facilitates collaboration with, communication of, and access to information, particularly in an education environment is disclosed. The invention includes a database having one or more records. Each record defines a logical connection between one or more querents and one or more respondents. Each logical connection has a strength value indicating the value of the logical connection. Some embodiments of the invention include a selecting process that selects one or more of the respondents to respond to one or more queries from a querent. Alternative embodiments of the invention include processes that mine the database and/or provide services to users.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation, under 37 CFR 1.53(b), of co-assignedU.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/939,823 of inventor Pickover, andclaims the benefit thereof, said application Ser. No. 10/939,823 havingbeen filed on Sep. 13, 2004 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,505,981, and entitled“System and Method for Evolving Efficient Communications.” The completedisclosure of the aforesaid application Ser. No. 10/939,823 is expresslyincorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to systems and methods used to facilitatecollaboration, communication, access, and flow of knowledge. Moreparticularly, the invention helps users obtain answers to questions andbecome more productive, especially in a learning environment.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In this fast-paced and complex world, it is difficult to find answers toquestions in a variety of fields. No single individual can be an expertin all areas of knowledge, and a single individual may have to solvemany different problems while on the job or at home. Currently, it iscommon for a technical support desks to help computer users solveproblems. Unfortunately, such a help desk typically provides informationon only a limited range of topics. For example, a user does nottypically use a single help desk to obtain an answer to questions aboutEnglish usage, a computer graphics application, a computer businessapplication, and pets. Additionally, help desks are sometimes expensiveto use, maintain, staff, and support. In the hiring process, most helpdesk managers look for a high degree of technical aptitude, the abilityto communicate well and empathize with the customer's (user's)situation. Thus, the technical support representative's level ofemotional intelligence and specific expertise, but not necessarily theirlevel of general knowledge, is critical to success.

Sometimes users seeking answers use computer bulletin boards to obtainanswers to questions. However, bulletin board usage often requires auser to understand beforehand which precise bulletin board to use, andthe posting process often does not automatically facilitate the buildingof persistent relationships between people, and is not optimized forobtaining high-quality and rapid answers. The communications connectionsbetween querent and responder are not always easy to automaticallyre-access at a later point in time.

PROBLEMS WITH THE PRIOR ART

Often people need to find a particular type of professional service,e.g., legal, accounting, engineering, artistic, etc. and have nocontacts in these areas. Using the prior art, it is difficult to findand/or evaluate these professional services using the prior art.

Individuals often spend significant time searching for information tohelp solve problems in both business and personal life. Help desks arelimited and expensive to maintain. Bulletin boards may not havetopically expertise specific to a query, can be hard to locate, anddon't necessarily provide a way to determine information accuracy.Bulletin boards and help desks often do not automatically facilitate thebuilding of persistent relationships between people and may not beoptimized for obtaining high-quality and rapid answers.

Today, people sometimes get quick answers simply by e-mailing questionsto friends. However, a query may be about a topic for which the circleof friends has no extensive knowledge. One's limited circle of friendsmay not be sufficient for getting answers, and a person cannotfrequently find experts willing to help solve a problem.

Timing can also be a problem in the prior art. A circle of friends orcontacts may not be available or easy to contact when the querent needsan answer to a query. Also, the communications connections betweenquerent and responder are not automatically reaccessable at a laterpoint in time.

ASPECTS OF THE INVENTION

An aspect of this invention is an improved system and method tofacilitate collaboration with, communication of, and access toinformation.

An aspect of this invention is an improved system and method forreceiving one or more answers associated with queries.

An aspect of this invention is an improved system and method tofacilitate collaboration with, communication of, and access to expertinformation.

An aspect of this invention is an improved system and method tofacilitate collaboration with, communication of, and access toinformation provide by a general set of responders.

An aspect of this invention is an improved system and method tofacilitate collaboration with, communication of, and access toinformation provide by a general set of responders and establishing apersistent relationship with one or more of the respondents.

An aspect of this invention is an improved system and method tofacilitate collaboration with, communication of, and access toinformation provide improved connectivity and access to a general set ofresponders.

An aspect of this invention is an improved system and method tofacilitate collaboration with, communication of, and access toinformation provide by a general set of responders in an educationenvironment.

An aspect of this invention is an improved system and method todetermine aspects about one or more responders in a set of responders.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is an improved system and method that facilitatescollaboration with, communication of, and access to information,particularly in an education environment. The invention includes adatabase having one or more records. Each record defines a logicalconnection between one or more querents and one or more respondents.Each logical connection has a strength value indicating the value of thelogical connection. Some embodiments of the invention include aselecting process that selects one or more of the respondents to respondto one or more queries from a querent. Alternative embodiments of theinvention include processes that mine the database, provide informationabout one or more of the responders, and/or provide services to users.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The foregoing and other objects, aspects, and advantages will be betterunderstood from the following non-limiting detailed description ofpreferred embodiments of the invention with reference to the drawingsthat include the following:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram on one preferred embodiment of the presentinvention, ThinkWeb (TW);

FIG. 2 is a flow chart showing one preferred embodiment of a query andanswer transmission process;

FIG. 3 is a diagram of one preferred database used to store informationin the TW;

FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a strength changing process;

FIG. 5 provides a flow chart of responder selection process;

FIG. 6 provides a flow chart of the higher-level responders selectionprocess; and

FIG. 7 provides a flow chart of a database mining process.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Information is critical to today's commercial organizations and ourpersonal lives. Typically, we have friends, or friends of friends, whomay be able to easily answer our questions, but it is often difficult toknow who to ask or how and when to access these people. The system andmethod described herein allows a user to work with a virtual singlepoint of contact and evolve useful communication connections between aquerent and a network or set of responders so that the a querent islikely to get a satisfactory answer to a question. In one preferredembodiment, the system and method described herein creates a “groupmind” that can be used to solve problems that any individual alone couldnot solve. In one preferred embodiment, the invention randomly queriesone or more potential responders that may or may not be known to thequerent. The invention identifies/creates connections that develop,form, and/or are updated with a set of the respondents so that the setcan be queried later more efficiently, e.g., useful communicationchannels evolve. The communication channels improve with iteration.

Some non limiting uses of the invention are in: educational settingsinvolving students, corporations, and any arena in which individuals areseeking information.

In a preferred embodiment, the invention enables a querent (e.g., aquerent seeks information or an answer to a question) to query one ormore known or unknown potential respondents over a network. The systemestablishes a communication connection between the querent and one ormore potential responders, sends the query(ies) between querent and oneor more potential responders, receives a response from one or moreresponders, assesses the quality of one or more of the responses,changes one or more connection characteristics between querent andresponders, and selects between potential responders based on a valueassociated with the connection between querents and responders for agiven query(ies).

Computing systems, such as the one described here, are used tofacilitate a flow of questions, answers, ideas and knowledge. TheThinkWeb (TW) allows people to be more productive, get answers toquestions, collaborate, and in some sense become part of a “group brain”composed of several individuals whose composite knowledge is greaterthan a single member's knowledge. In one aspect, the TW can query randompotential responders and evolve a useful set of connections forcommunications.

Consider a user who has a vast number of possible communicationconnections he can make with other people for the purpose of obtainingan answer to a question. This set of connections may be imagined as anoctopus, with the center of the creature representing a user, and thevarious tentacles or tendrils representing the possible connections thatmay be made with other people, groups of people, or software agentscapable of responding to queries. The challenge is knowing how to form,maintain, manage, and optimize these tendrils for obtaining answers toquestions.

When first invoking the TW a user may optionally specify several areasof interest, for example: Banking, Automobiles, Telecommunications,Future Technology, Linux, Life Sciences, Computer Art, Fractals, andSoftware, Hardware, Visionary Ideas, Programming, Invention, Hobbies,World Wide Web, News, and so forth. Alternatively, the user need notspecify any areas of interest.

In one embodiment, when the user invokes the TW, a TW client sends out“random” tendrils (i.e. connections) to a number, n, of potentialresponders (set or sets of responders) who may be interested in the samegeneral topic areas. A user asks a question or tosses out an idea, andthe n members of this virtual team (set of responders), which can becreated on the fly, have an opportunity to give advice, share newsitems, brainstorm about inventions, and so forth. Often, not everyonewill respond to a user's challenge or question.

However, if the user likes the particular advice from a personencountered using the TW, the connection (tendril) to this person isgiven a different status or weighting. Thus there will be a connectionstatus associated with each of the connections. In a preferredembodiment, the connection status changes over time for one or more ofthe connections, i.e., the connection status changes depending on anumber of status factors, e.g., time of response, quality of response,financial cost of response, level of a respondent in an organization(corporation, college), etc. Further note that the status for eachconnection/tendril can be defined by status attributes, e.g., questionsubject.

The user can indicate a favorable reaction to a response in many ways.In one preferred embodiment, the user may select a “helpful” button thatincrements a “usefulness” counter for that person. In preferredembodiments, connection status is used to determine future uses of theconnection. For example, the connection status of a connection mightdetermine whether a particular connection is used for a future query.This incrementing can be used to ensure a user's next invocation of theThinkWeb tends to include people with incremented values in one'spersonal network of potential responders.

When used inside a company, the tendrils may traverse company divisionsand have an initial random component that connects the user to randomlychosen potential responders in order to facilitate diverse ideas,viewpoints, and interaction of diverse skill sets. The TW may also learnand optimize the tendril connections automatically without the userhaving to press a “helpful” or “useful” button. For example, the systemmay suggest connections and people based on an assessment of people'sskills and history of responding in certain topic areas to otherquerents or based on the number of increments a person has received byothers. The system may reward those responders who provide usefuladvice. For example, a reward might be monetary or favorable employeeevaluation. The system may allow users to visualize the tendrils ininteresting ways, for example through a network diagram displayed oncomputer display in which color indicates those connections or tendrilsthat have yielded useful information flow.

The system encourages collaboration, serendipity, and new ideas. The TWis also highly practical, allowing the user to quickly get answers toquestions and spend more effective time on those items for which thegroup brain (i.e. collection of members in connected together via theTW) has no fast answers.

Too many tendrils may lead to chaos; too few leads to unansweredquestions and a less diverse skill set. Analysis tools can search foroptimal and interesting routes through the tendrils. A user's ThinkWebmay metastasize into the user's partner's web, gaining tendrils fromneighbors that may be useful. In other words, a responder in a user's TWnetwork of potential responders also has his own responders whom a usermay query.

This system and method also has implications for social and learningnetworks and how they form when one company absorbs another company. Inthese instances, the TW's tendrils may evolve in interesting ways. Forexample, when two separate TW networks of communication are madeavailable, for example, through the merging of two groups, companydepartments, or companies, tendrils will begin to form between the twowebs, thus automatically uniting people in the two companies ascommunications begin to flow between people.

The system and method may be used to determine trustworthiness ofindividuals or organizations. For example, if an individual isconstantly “decremented” using the weighted tendril approach, this maymean that a person in an organization or classroom is often providingincorrect answers. Fail-safes may be implemented to prevent a malicioususe of this feature. For example, if one individual is constantlydecrementing a variety of responders, this may mean that the user is tooharsh or critical and, thus, his collection of increment and decrementsmay be weighted less when determining a respondent's overall rating.

A service bureau may run the TW for companies. In other words, a servicebureau may software management tools, maintain the various networksbetween people, discover areas of expertise in a company, discover areaof insufficient communication in teams, and charge a fee for thisservice based on various criteria.

FIG. 1 shows a typical TW comprising a querent 110, a potential set ofresponders 120S, (typically 120) which may be other people, groups ofpeople, or software agents capable of responding to a query 110Q,strength paths (i.e. communication connections or tendrils) 130 thatlink the querent 110 and potential responder 120, and a strength S_(n)140 that determines the strength of the association between querent 110and responder 120.

In an educational setting, querents and responders may include teachers,such as professor 123, and students 122. The strength paths 130 may bean association between querent 110 and potential responder 120 stored asa vector in a database 124 that resides on a user's client computer 112or on another computer 124, such as a service bureau computer 124. (Thecomputers (112, 124) can be any general purpose computer.) For example,the strength 140 between querent 110 and responder 120 may increase ifthe responder provides a useful or high-quality answers as judged by thequerent 110 or by a TW software agent 150, or by others. The softwareagent 150 may reside in the service bureau 124, at the querent'scomputer 112, or on another computer attached to the network. As the TWis used, those responders with higher strength values 140 may be favoredin subsequent queries in order to increase the likelihood of receiving ahigh-quality response. In other words, if S2>S3, then the next time aquerent asks a question, the responder associated with S2 may be askedinstead of the responder associated with S3. Note that the strength 140of the connection 130 may vary with the query 110Q. For example, aconnection 130 might have different strength 140 for a query 110Q abouthistory than for a query 110Q about biology. Alternatively, strengths140 can change between the querent and responder over time for the sametopic or different topics because the evaluation of the responderchanged over time.

A service bureau 160 may run the TW and provide this as a service.Potential responders 120 may themselves have strength paths 170 to theirown network of potential responders. For example, a first responder 120would become a querent 110 to a second set of responders (“second-levelresponders”) 120, who in turn may be querents to a third set ofresponders (“third-level responders”) 120, and other higher-levelrespondents. It is initially noted that the TW environment is presentedfor illustration purposes only, and is representative of countlessconfigurations in which the invention may be implemented. Thus, thepresent invention should not be construed as limited to the environmentconfigurations shown and discussed herein.

The collection or responders and users are united by a computer network105, such as the Internet or internal company network. Physicalconnections 125 between responders 120 and querent 110 may be providedby standard communication networks such as a wired Internet connection,a wireless connection, fiber optic, and/or a phone line.

FIG. 2 is a flow chart of one preferred process 200 that enables theoperation of a TW.

In step 210, a querent asks a question. The queries 110Q are posed byany know machine query technique, e.g., voice, text, etc. The query 110Qmight be parse using standard knowledge management techniques todetermine the subject or other attributes of the query.

Potential responders 120 for this question are then chosen in step 220.For example, in a random selection, 5 random respondents 120 within acompany may be selected. These recipients may be identified by e-mailaddresses, instant message addresses, or by other means. In alternativeembodiments, the responders are chosen because the have a strength value140 above a certain threshold. In other embodiments, the responders 120are chosen because they have a strength value above a threshold in asubject area (or other attributes(s)) related to the query 110Q. Instill alternative embodiments, a vector analysis of the strength 120 isdone. See FIG. 3 description.

In step 230, a question from the querent is sent to one or morerespondents that were selected in step 220. This query sending may beperformed using known methods for transmitting queries 110Q (textual,audio, visual, or multimedia) over a computer network from a querent 110to a respondent 120.

In step 240, one or more of the selected responders 120 sends an answerto the querent 110, again by any well known technique.

In step 250, the strength S 140 associated with the connection path 130is changed either manually or automatically. For example, if oneresponder 120 gave an excellent answer to a question/query 110Q, theuser/querent 110 may increment the strength value using a computerinterface. For example, a user/querent 110 may select an icon on thescreen that cause an increase in the value of the strength (350 in FIG.3), which is stored as a number(s) in a database 124. Alternatively, theTW software agent 150 may monitor the connection and determine that ananswer has been sent, or determine that the quality of the answer islikely to be high, and change the value of S accordingly. The agent 150may automatically estimate an assessment of answer quality by variousmeans including an assessment of the length of the response, the amountof time a user had to wait for the response, or by examining keywords,grammar, and other content indicators in the response.

Subsequent queries 110Q may favor those responders 120 associated withhigh strength values. For example, in step 220, the system may determinethe three potential respondents with the highest strength values andsend the questions only to them. Respondents with low strength valuesmay be dropped from a querent's TW and replaced with new randompotential responders, which may or may not turn out to be useful infuture queries. As this embodiment is used, the system 100 may retainrespondents 120 with high strengths 140 and drop respondents with lowerstrengths 140. In this way, the network/set 120S of respondents 120becomes “smarter” or more useful in the perception of the querent 110 orservice provider 160.

Data useful for operating the TW may be stored in a database 124 thatresides on a user's client computer 112 or on another computer 124, suchas a service bureau computer 124. FIG. 3 is a block diagram of onepossible implementation of the database. Each line or record 310 of thedatabase describes a strength path between querent and responder. Thefirst column contains a strength vector identifier 320, such as anumber. The second column contains an identifier 330 for one person, forexample, the querent 110. The third column contains an identifier 340for one person, for example, the responder 120. The fourth columncontains the value of the strength, 140 of the strength path 130 betweenperson 1 and person 2. These strength values 350 are also shown in FIG.1 as S1, S2, S3 . . . . Note that these strength values may not need besingle numbers but may be vectors. For example, a querent 110 or agent150 may increment a three-dimensional vector in step 250 of FIG. 2 andstore this vector in record 310 in database 124. The vector couldinclude an assessment of the quality of an answer, an assessment of thespeed of response, and an assessment of the empathy shown by theresponder to the querent. If the strength values 140 are vectors, the TWmay compare the magnitude or other composite characterization of thevectors when deciding upon which responder to use. Note that there mightbe several strength values 140 between the same querent 110 andresponder 120 depending on other attributes of the vector 310, e.g.,topic/subject matter 360 or cost 370. When the users adjusts thestrength value using an icon, he may have multiple icons to incrementthe various parts of the vector, or answer questions relating to anassessment of the responders response in order to determine the value ofthe vector.

One or more topics may be stored in column 360. These topicscharacterize the interaction specified by the vectors in column 1. If afee is charged for using the TW, for example, a fee charged for ananswer given by a responder, the charge may be stored in column 370.

FIG. 4 is a flow chart of a process for step 250 in which the strengthvalues 350 are changed. As an example, a responder may return an answerto a question. The querent may evaluate this answer along severaldimensions. When the users adjusts 410 the strength value using an icon,he may have multiple icons, fields, or sliders to increment the variousaspects of the response. For example, the querent may give the responsea +50 for usefulness but a −5 for timeliness. These values may then bestored in 350. The querent may provide answers a shortsurvey/questionnaire (from the service 160) relating to an assessment ofthe responders 120 response in order to determine the value 350 of thevector.

Others may adjust the strength values 420. For example, a professor 123may rate an answer as to accuracy, and the professor's strength valuemay reside in the database in addition to the querent's value.Alternatively, the strength value may be some weighted valuerepresenting both the querent's and the teacher's strength assessment.The software agent 150 may adjust the strength values 420. For example,an agent 123 may be able to automatically rate an answer giventimeliness, the use of keywords, the use of correct grammar and soforth, and the agent's strength value may reside in the database inaddition to the querent's value.

Alternatively, the strength value may be some weighted valuerepresenting both the querent's and the agent's strength assessment. Theservice bureau 160 may adjust the strength values 420. For example, aservice bureau 123 may rate an answer as to accuracy, and the bureau'sstrength value may reside in the database in addition to the querent'svalue. Alternatively, the strength value may be some weighted valuerepresenting both the querent's and the service bureau's strengthassessment.

FIG. 5 shows an embodiment of how potential responders may be selectedin step 220 of FIG. 2. In some cases, it is useful to have some randomselection of responders to encourage diverse ideas, working acrosscompany boundaries, and for other purposes. In step 510, one or morerandom potential responders is chosen. In step 520, strength values areused to determine potential responders. For example, the TW may examinea querent's previous strength paths by scanning records 310 in thedatabase. If an existing strength path is value 360 is high, theresponder corresponding to this strength path may be used again. Inmaking this determination, the system may compute the magnitude of thestrength values in 350 while also examining the topic field 360. In step530, the system may also examine topics stored in column 360 todetermine appropriate responders. For example, if a student asks aquestion about the US Constitution, the topic “US Constitution” may bescanned for in the database to help determine which responder to use. Instep 540, the TW examine the fee charged in column 370. If a querent isconcerned about cost, the TW may scan for previous low cost transactionand select responders from the set of low cost responders.

Thus, the system described herein represents a system and methodcomprising a querent seeking a responder (e.g. querent seeks informationor an answer to a question), establishing a strength path (i.e.communications connection) between querent to one or more potentialresponders, providing a means for sending query between querent and oneor more potential responders, a means for receiving a response from oneor more responders, a means for assessing the quality of the response, ameans for changing one or more strength path characteristics betweenquerent and responders, and a means for selecting among potentialresponders based on strength path values.

A querent may be a person, software agent, group, company, or a servicebureau. The responder may be a person, software agent, groups, company,or a service bureau. The strength path may be a vector associating anidentifier, like an e-mail address, for the querent and the potentialresponder. One or more potential responders may be chosen randomly,particularly when the TW is first invoked. The identifier may be ane-mail address, a web URL, a person's name, a company's name, a softwareagent's name, a pseudonym for one or more people, or an alphanumericstring in a database 124. The querent or responder may remain anonymous.The sending may be via any of: e-mail, discussion board, web, phone,other network transmission. The assessing the quality is based on anyof: a user-entered assessment (e.g. querent selects a “helpful” buttonif she judges answer to be helpful), automatic (e.g. a computer analysisof the response time, length of response, fog index of the response,biometric assessment of querent satisfaction), or quality assessment ofother individuals such as friends, colleagues, managers, group ofindividuals, or a company.

For example, in step 420, a querent's colleagues, a teacher, or a reviewboard may be sent a response and asked to evaluate it. The evaluation isreturned and may affect the value of the strength 350 associated withthis response. For example, a favorable response may increase thestrength value.

The strength value may be changed based on the assessing of quality ofthe answer (e.g. a strength value is incremented by +1 if the quality isgood). Subsequent queries are selectively routed along paths based onthe strength of each path (e.g. high-strength paths are followed more orare preferred more than low-strength paths.) A fee may be charged basedon the number of strength paths used. For example, a service bureau 160may charge more if more strength paths are used. The strength pathincludes strength paths associated with one or more (neighboring)responders. For example, a user 110 can use his responder's 120high-value strength paths 170 to access additional potentialrespondents. A fee may be changed based on the number of neighboringstrength paths 170 used and access to responders.

Various automated techniques for determining quality of response may beused to automatically determine aspects of the strength 350 and may beused for determining which respondents to use in step 520. For example,the fog index is a proven method of analyzing written material to seehow easy it is to read and understand. The steps required to calculatethe fog index are known in the prior art and usually require an analysisof the number of words in a sentence, the number of big words (3 or moresyllables), the average sentence length, and so forth. High scores forfog index indicate the writing sample in a response is too hard for mostpeople to read. High values for the fog index might increase or decreasethe strength values, depending on the querent.

The strength paths may be suggested by the system's software agent 160(for example, the system may estimate the usefulness of certain strengthpaths and let a user use them). The network of strength paths may beused to determine centers of expertise or trustworthiness, for example,in an organization. A responder 120 or team of responders may be viewedto be valuable if their strength path values S 140 are high. The networkcan also be used to determine rewards for responders 120. The networkcan be used to identify areas in which new projects should start. Ifnumerous questions are asked for which no one has answers or if thequestions are continually asked, this may suggest a hot area for furtherresearch.

The TW has implications for students, teachers, schools, and companies.Part or all of strength paths network may be sold for a fee. The querentand responders may be any of: students, engineers, architects, lawyers,financial advisors, tax advisors, teachers, employees of a company,physicians in a physician network, users communicating on the Internet,anti-terrorist bureau, service bureau, help desk. The strength paths maybe visualized (e.g. color and intensity are used to highlight high valuestrength paths). Authorities and concentrations of authorities may beidentified by an analysis of strength paths. Certain strength paths maybe protected (e.g. secured, made invisible, locked down temporarily,monitored for correctness, password protected, protected from abuse,etc.)

Users may often get quick answers and generate novel ideas using a TW.Through repeated use, users may evolve new ways of thinking about theircomputers as a tool for gaining insight and reasoning beyond the limitsof their own intuition and abilities.

Uses for TW in education include a network of querents 110 andresponders 120 that can be set up among students and teachers in acourse. The teacher or a service provider 160 can mine the database todetermine the student with the highest strength in the network for anygiven attributes, e.g., queries on subject matter of the course.Stronger strength values can be factored into the grade of thestudent/responder.

Uses for TW in corporations include a network of querents 110, e.g.,employees and/or managers, and respondents 120, e.g., employees and/ormanagers. The managers and/or a service provider 160 can mine thedatabase to determine strengths of employees for given attributes, e.g.,speed of response, accuracy of response, number of correct responses,etc. Stronger strength values 140 can be a factor in the performanceevaluation of the employee.

Uses for TW over a general network include a network of querents 110that wish to evaluate or identify experts in certain areas, e.g.,medicine, law, accounting, engineering, consulting, contracting, etc.The experts/respondents 120 are evaluated by mining data in the databaseaccording to certain criteria, e.g., number of satisfied querents, cost,timeliness of response, etc. Higher strength values for a respondentindicate a preference for this respondent among the querents 110 on thenetwork. The respondents with higher strengths could demand high pricesfor their services than other respondents on the network. Theinformation could also be mined by a service provider 160 that couldprovide access to a given respondent for a fee.

The foregoing description of the invention has been presented forpurposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to beexhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed, andother modifications and variations may be possible in light of the aboveteachings. The embodiments disclosed were chosen and described in orderto best explain the principles of the invention and its practicalapplication to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilizethe invention in various embodiments and various modifications as aresuited to the particular use contemplated. It is intended that theappended claims be construed to include other alternative embodiments ofthe invention except insofar as limited by the prior art.

Responder selection in step 220 may typically employ first-levelresponders, but it may also select from among second-level responders,third-level responders, and so forth. These higher-level respondents areselected from a set of higher-level respondents using one or more of thefollowing: the higher-level respondent with the highest strength value,the higher-level respondent with a strength value above a threshold, arandom selection, a higher-level respondent with a strength value abovea threshold in a specific subject area, and a cost of the response. Therespondents may be selected from a set of higher-level respondents whenone or more of the following conditions are met: a (first level)respondent does not provide an answer, a respondent makes a request to ahigher-level respondent to respond, a querent makes a request to ahigher-level respondent to respond, an agent 150 makes a request to ahigher-level respondent to respond, a service bureau 160 makes a requestto a higher-level respondent to respond. In this manner, useful answersmay be obtained by the querent, for example, when a first-levelresponder is unavailable or does not know the answer to a question.

The system may determine a second-level responder, or higher-levelresponders, for a querent by an analysis (performed in step 640) of thetable in FIG. 3. For example, the system may determine that “Cliff” is arespondent P2 in column 340 for querent P1, who is identified as “Lou”in column 330. The system may now scan for respondents P2 (Barb) forCliff when Cliff appears in column 330. Thus, those people identified(Barb) in column 340 for Cliff are second-level responders to Lou. It ispossible that if Cliff has provided high-quality answers to Lou onparticular subjects then Cliffs respondents (Barb) may have similarinterests, dispositions, and expertise as Cliff and thus would bepotentially useful to help Lou with a question or other interaction.Alternatively, Cliff could provide Lou with some or all of Cliffsdatabase 124 upon request, for receiving a fee (e.g., by selling all orpart of the database, or by granting access for free or with some otherconditions (e.g., if Lou is a member of Cliffs club or newsletter)).

Through continual use of the TW, the system evolves a set ofcommunications channels that lead to an efficient and perhaps enjoyablemeans for information dissemination that may be used, for example, onthe job, for hobbyists, for entertainment purposes, for students, forhelp desks, for financial transactions, and for auction and barter. In afinancial, barter, or auction scenario, querents and responders maycomprise potential sellers and potential buyers for goods and services.A querent may offer a good or service in the same manner as described inFIG. 2 (step 210). For example, the querent seller (buyer) would ask:Does any one want to buy a computer? (Does anyone have a computer forsale?) A potential buyer (seller) may be selected in the same manner asdescribed in step 220 for the selection of a responder. In this manner,a fluid and efficient set of communication channels evolves betweenpotential sellers and potential buyers. In buyer/seller scenarios, thetopic 360 may represent, for example, a good or service category such asantiques, computers, Picasso paintings, science-fiction books, computerservices, gold jewelry, or any other good or product. Likewise servicescan be bought and sold. These services include: financial, engineering,architectural, medical, legal, consulting, recreational, marketing,sales, writing, entertainment, real estate, tax, employment, and/or anyother service. In step 240, the potential buyer transmits an offer for agoods and services. The strength values 350 may characterize such itemsas the timeliness, clarity of offer, and trustworthiness of a potentialbuyer/seller. In this use there can also be levels of buyers or sellers.Note that in different embodiments of the invention, the buyer could bethe querent (Is this item for sale?) or the respondent (Yes I'm lookingfor an antique.) In like manner, the seller can also be the querent (Isanyone interested in my antiques?) or the respondent (Yes I haveantiques to sell.)

FIG. 6 is a flow chart of a higher-level selection process 600 forselecting higher level responders. In step 610, as in step 210, aquerent asks a question.

In step 620, various criteria are applied to determine if higher-levelresponders are used. If, it is determined there are no reasons to accesshigher level responders, the process 600 stops at a first levelresponder 630 as in FIG. 2.

However, applying the criteria in step 620 might require that higherlevel responders are selected. One examples of these criteria is if arespondent does not provide an answer, for example, because he is onvacation and away from the computer. Other criteria may be employed todetermine if higher-level responders are used in step 640. Othercriteria include: a respondent making a request to a higher-levelrespondent to respond, a querent making a request to a higher-levelrespondent to respond, an agent making a request to a higher-levelrespondent to respond, a service bureau making a request to ahigher-level respondent to respond. Other criteria for selectinghigher-level responders, such as an assessment of strength values, maybe used as described in FIG. 2 which outlines the process forfirst-level responders. For example, a higher level responder might beselected if the higher level responder has a strength value above athreshold in a given area or if their cost is low.

Both the querents and respondents may remain anonymous. This may beimplemented by not revealing identifiers 330 and 340 to users of thesystem. Anonymity may be useful to avoid bias or prejudice on the partof responders and for privacy or other reasons.

The respondent may be a “virtual responder.” For example, a querent mayask a querent of “Mr. Answer Man,” or “Dr. Smith,” who in reality is avirtual entity comprising several responders. This virtual entity may bereimbursed, rewarded, and given jobs. For example, if Mr. Answer Man(comprising 5 individuals) answers 10 questions satisfactorily and he'sgiven a reward of $10. Each responder in the virtual responder may begiven ⅕ or $2 for providing this answer as a service.

A service bureau 160 may providing a service for assessing following:centers of competency in a group, centers of lack of competency in agroup, teams to be built from responders. The service may provide thisinformation by mining the data in records 310 in the table in FIG. 3.For example, if Lou and Cliff have a history of providing high-qualityanswers as gleaned from their high strength values 350 or sheer numberof vectors 320 and/or ability to make money (as seen in the costs 370)they may be deemed to be centers of competency or trustworthiness. Onthe other hand, for example, if Lou and Cliff have a history ofproviding poor answers as gleaned from their low strength values 350 orfew number of vectors 320 and/or ability to make money (as seen in thecosts 370), they may be deemed to be centers of low competency or lowtrustworthiness in general or for particular topics 360.

FIG. 7 is a flow chart of a mining process 700 showing of how suchcenters of interest or activity (e.g., competency) or lack of interestor activity (or competency) may be mined from the table in FIG. 3. Instep 710, service bureau 160 or agent 150 reads records 310. In step720, the composite strength for a particular respondent 340 is computed.For example, this may be an average of the strengths 350 of a set ofvectors 320 for the respondent 340 for a particular topic 360. There areother known techniques for determining these composite strengths, e.g.,mode, median, measures of central tendency, or other statistics.Alternatively, or in addition to, step 730 computes the number ofresponses for the respondent 340. Again, alternatively or in additionto, step 740, a cost measure (e.g., the total or average cost) iscomputed for all the costs for respondent 340. Therefore, each of thesteps 720, 730, and 740 gives a measure of some level of competency orinterest or activity of a given respondent or querent. These steps canoptionally be used together or separately to determine the competency orselectability of the respondent (or even querent) in step 750. In step750, a competency value is computed that describes the overallcompetency or trustworthiness of a respondent. This competency may becomputed in general or for one or more particular topics for arespondent. For example, the competency value may be a function of thevarious strengths, number of responses, and costs for the variousresponses. Thus, centers of competency, comprising an individual, groupsof individuals, or virtual responders may be determined and provided toan employer of the individuals. Using this information, the servicebureau may also suggest the formation of teams comprisinghigh-competency responders for new projects or other purposes.

1. A computer program product comprising a tangible computer readablerecordable storage medium including computer usable program code forimplementing a database, said computer program product including:computer usable program code for generating a plurality of records, eachrecord having one or more stored querents and one or more storedrespondents and a stored strength value indicating the value to one ofthe stored querents of one or more responses from one of the storedrespondents; wherein said computer usable program code for generatingsaid records comprises: computer usable program code for selecting oneor more sets of respondents to respond to one or more queries from aquerent by using an initial strength value between the querent and oneor more of the respondents; computer usable program code for receivingone or more responses to the queries from one or more of therespondents; computer usable program code for updating the strengthvalues of the respective respondent by an assessment of the response;computer usable program code for iteratively evolving updatedconnections for future queries, based at least in part on said updatedstrength values; and computer usable program code for storing saidupdated connections in said database, as said plurality of records,comprising said stored querents, stored respondents, and stored strengthvalues, such that a computer can access said database to obtain usefulresponses to said future queries.
 2. A system, as in claim 1, where thequerents and respondents are anonymous.
 3. A system, as in claim 1,where the respondent is a virtual responder.
 4. A computer systemcomprising: a memory, tangibly storing a database having a plurality ofrecords, each record defining a logical connection between one or morequerents and one or more respondents, each logical connection having astrength value; and at least one processor, coupled to said memory, andoperative to: execute a process for: updating the strength value as thequerent receives future responses to future queries from the respondentand the future responses have different values to the querent;iteratively evolving updated connections for future queries, based atleast in part on said updated strength values; and storing said updatedconnections in said database, as said plurality of records; and executea selecting process that selects one or more of the respondents torespond to one or more of said future queries from the querent, suchthat said querent can obtain useful responses to said future queriesbased on said updated connections.
 5. A computer system, as in claim 4,where the respondents are selected using one or more of the following:the respondent with the highest strength value, the respondent with astrength value above a threshold, a random selection, a respondent witha strength value above a threshold in a specific subject area, therespondent with the lowest strength value, the respondent with thestrength value below a lower threshold value, a respondent with a numberof responses above a number threshold, and a cost of the response.
 6. Asystem, as in claim 4, where the updating process updates one or more ofthe strength values by one or more of the following: a user interface,an icon, a computer program agent, the querents input, an input from aservice provider, and an input from a third party.
 7. A system, as inclaim 4, where the updating process updates the strength values based onone or more of the following attributes: helpfulness of the response,accuracy of the response, time to respond, length of response, anautomated analysis, fog index of the response, and quality assessment ofone or more party individuals.
 8. A system, as in claim 4, where thequerent is any one or more of the following: a person, a group, acompany, a company employee, a software agent, a service bureau, astudent, a teacher, employees of a company, an employer, physicians in aphysician network, an accountant, a lawyer, an engineer, a contractor, aconsultant, a buyer, a seller, one or more users communicating on theInternet, an security agency, and a help desk.
 9. A system, as in claim4, where the logical connection is represented by a vector associatingan identifier for the querent and the potential responder.
 10. A system,as in claim 4, where one or more of the records are maintained by one ormore of the following: the querent, one or more of the responders, aservice provider, and one or more third parties.
 11. A system, as inclaim 4, where the respondents are selected from a set of higher-levelrespondents using one or more of the following: the higher-levelrespondent with the highest strength value, the higher-level respondentwith a strength value above a threshold, a random selection, ahigher-level respondent with a strength value above a threshold in aspecific subject area, and a cost of the response.
 12. A system, as inclaim 4, where the respondents are selected from a set of higher-levelrespondents when one or more of the following conditions are met: arespondent does not provide an answer, a respondent makes a request to ahigher-level respondent to respond, a querent makes a request to ahigher-level respondent to respond, an agent makes a request to ahigher-level respondent to respond, a service bureau makes a request toa higher-level respondent to respond.
 13. A system, as in claim 4, wherethe selection process selects one or more respondents to form one ormore of the following: a center of competency in a group, a center oflack of competency in a group, and a team.
 14. A computer system fordata access comprising a tangible computer readable recordable storagemedium: means for selecting one or more sets of respondents to respondto one or more queries from a querent by using a strength value betweenthe querent and one or more of the respondents in the set; means forreceiving one or more responses to the query from one or more of therespondents; means for updating the strength values of the respectiverespondent by an assessment of the response; means for iterativelyevolving updated connections for future queries, based at least in parton said updated strength values; and means for storing said updatedconnections in a data structure such that a computer can access saiddata structure to obtain useful responses to said future queries.
 15. Adatabase system comprising: a memory, tangibly storing a plurality ofrecords, each record having one or more stored querents and one or morestored respondents and a stored strength value indicating the value toone of the stored querents of one or more responses from one of thestored respondents; and at least one processor, coupled to said memory,and operative to: select one or more sets of respondents to respond toone or more queries from a querent by using an initial strength valuebetween the querent and one or more of the respondents; receive one ormore responses to the queries from one or more of the respondents;update the strength values of the respective respondent by an assessmentof the response; iteratively evolve updated connections for futurequeries, based at least in part on said updated strength values; storesaid updated connections in said database, as said plurality of records,comprising said stored querents, stored respondents, and stored strengthvalues, such that a computer can access said database to obtain usefulresponses to said future queries; and execute a mining process thatreads a plurality of the records and determines an interest in one ormore of the records according to an interest criteria.
 16. A system, asin claim 15, where the interest criteria are one or more of thefollowing: a number of records, the strength value, and a cost.
 17. Asystem, as in claim 15, where the interest criteria indicates one ormore of the following: a competency in a topic, a lack of competency, anactivity level of one or more respondents, an activity level of one ormore topics, a cost of service, one or more offers for sale of product,one or more offers for sale of a service, one or more purchasers for aproduct, one or more purchasers of a service, a center of competency ina group, a center of lack of competency in a group, and one or moreindividuals of competency to form a team.